Iraq Rape-Slay Case Hits Snags

(AP)  They were convicted one after another - four U.S. soldiers who helped gang rape and kill a 14-year-old Iraqi girl in one of the war's worst atrocities.

In exchange for leniency, each struck deals to testify against a fifth man, a troubled former Army private who allegedly killed the girl's family and planted the idea of raping the teen.

But the case against Steven D. Green has dragged slowly forward in the 18 months since the allegations surfaced. It is a pace, military legal experts note, that bears stark contrast to swift prosecutions of nearly every other crime to come from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Green, 22, is accused of being a central figure in slaying the family in Mahmoudiya, a village about 20 miles south of Baghdad. He was charged in federal court because he was discharged from the Army for anti-social personality disorder before being accused of the crimes.

On Tuesday, his trial was set for April 13, 2009, in Paducah, Kentucky.

Defense attorneys and federal prosecutors in the case have fought each other on the reach of federal courts into military affairs, the access civilian attorneys have to classified military evidence, and, most recently, what constitutes enough time to prepare for trial.

Some legal experts say the delays and infighting suggest challenges ahead in trying the last chapter of what many regard as the worst atrocity committed by U.S. military personnel in Iraq.

"You've got some very smart people trying a type of case that they normally don't," said Charles Rose, a law professor at Stetson University and former deputy military judge advocate. "Federal criminal courts are designed for paper-driven cases. They don't do violations of the laws of war."

Unlike his co-accused, Green, 22, of Midland, Texas, is the only soldier charged in civilian court for the March 2006 slayings, where he faces a possible death sentence if convicted.

Green pleaded not guilty in November 2006 to charges of rape and murder.

Four Fort Campbell, Kentucky-based 101st Airborne Division soldiers have since been convicted for their roles in targeting the girl from a checkpoint near Mahmoudiya and helping rape and kill her. They were given sentences in courts-martial ranging from five to 110 years under agreements with prosecutors.

Two of the soldiers testified they took turns raping the girl while Green shot and killed her mother, father and younger sister. Green shot the girl in the head after raping her, they said. The girl's body was then set on fire with kerosene to destroy the evidence, according to previous testimony.

At the core of Green's trial is the law used to charge him in U.S. District Court. The Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act allows prosecutors to try military personnel in federal court if they no longer are in the service and are charged for a crime punishable by at least a year in prison.

The law, which has been used rarely, dissolved Green's chances of receiving a sentence comparable to those of the other defendants if he is convicted, attorneys have argued. Each soldier was charged identically, but those convicted in the military have a chance for parole in 10 years no matter the sentence they received.

While legal experts say disparity in sentencing is not unusual, Green's attorneys have argued there is a fundamental issue of fairness that is lost by the government's insistence on trying Green outside of the reaches of the military.

A telephone message seeking comment was left Tuesday at Assistant U.S. District Attorney Marisa Ford's Louisville, Kentucky, office. Green's attorney, Patrick Bouldin, declined to comment Tuesday night.

Delays are expected in a federal death penalty case, where proceedings have lasted as long as three years, legal experts say.

But Gary Solis, a law professor at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, New York, remains baffled that prosecuting the Mahmoudiya slayings has lingered when so many other crimes in Iraq have come to a close.

Solis said trying Green in U.S. District Court undoubtedly reflects political pressure to ensure the most severe punishment for the crime's alleged ringleader.

[b-easy63]

Actually, the worst atrocity was invading Iraq based on lies. Because it was from that one act, that almost all the other atrocities whether committed by our government, our military, Al Qaeda or insurgents---came into being.

[greco99-2009]

Wait until people see the movie Redacted about this case...and realize Steven Green could walk free.

Here''s the problem -- if they prosecute Steven Green it means they can prosecute rapists and killers from Haliburton and Dyncorp.

Steven Green was discharged from the Army, and is *not* being prosecuted under UCMJ (military) law. He now falls into a phony ''legal loophole'' created by Bush and the Neocons to benefit corrupt cronies.

Just consider the choice of law question: which ''rules of evidence'' apply? Under phony Bush law, we get the bizarre result that *no* rules of evidence apply -- because allowing either U.S. or Iraqi law enables prosecution of past and ongoing illegal acts that endanger his cronies (and Cheney''s) profits.

The alleged Haliburton and Blackwater rapists and killers (and, illegal arms sellers) fall into the same loophole as Steven Green, to preserve the loophole it is not possible to prosecute him.

It is impossible to investigate these companies in their lawless mideast havens. That is why they moved out of the U.S. (and to avoid taxes).

Steven Green will walk free. Just like Helliburton rapists, he falls into the loophole. They will be free to party with your daughter, and there''s nothing anyone can do.

Look at the contradictions in these cases and its clear why Bush and the Neo-Cons will be remembered as incompetant if not downright evil.

Would it be legal for someone to shoot Cheney in the loophole zone?

[gunnerv1]

There may, MAY be a chance of bringing him back on "Active" duty. Did you everthink of that. It''s been done before.

[rickstas]

It says Green has "anti-social personality disorder" -- so he has something in common with the president.

[greco99-2009]

Wait until people see the movie Redacted about this case...and realize Steven Green could walk free.

Here''s the problem -- if they prosecute Steven Green it means they can prosecute rapists and killers from Haliburton and Dyncorp.

Steven Green was discharged from the Army, and is *not* being prosecuted under UCMJ (military) law. He now falls into a phony ''legal loophole'' created by Bush and the Neocons to benefit corrupt cronies.

Just consider the choice of law question: which ''rules of evidence'' apply? Under phony Bush law, we get the bizarre result that *no* rules of evidence apply -- because allowing either U.S. or Iraqi law enables prosecution of past illegal acts and ongoing investigations.

The alleged Haliburton adn Blackwater rapists and killers (and, illegal arms sellers) fall into the same loophole as Steven Green, to preserve the loophole its impossible to prosecute him.

It is impossible to investigate these companies in their lawless mideast havens. That is why they moved out of the U.S. (and to avoid taxes).

Steven Green will walk free. Just like Helliburton rapists, he falls into the loophole. They will be able to party with your daughter, and there''''s nothing anyone can do.

Look at the contradictions in these cases and its clear why Bush and the Neo-Cons will be remembered as incompetant if not downright evil.

Would it be legal for someone to shoot Cheney in the loophole zone?

[gunnerv1]

FeelFree1 I''ll bet that everytime your forced to say "Bush" you have to wash your mouth out with soap and water. Am I a war monger? Sure why not, I''ll accept the title. I retired from the Military 22 years ago, it didn''t bother me too much to be spit on back in the 70''s, because I knew then that I''ll was going to make a career out of it. Now, I get almost $2k a month for the rest of my life (and medical too) It was just a job that I enjoyed to the utmost. Blowing things/people up, what more could a redneck Southeren boy ask for, YeeHaw!

[brianbwb-2009]

"...that if a similar prohibition had been intended for the President, then such words would have also been written to effect it..." Posted by ToolMangler

I think the reverse is actually the case, if the drafters had intended for a president to unilaterally declare war, they would have written " the president, and/or congress shall..."

My take is that the authors did not want to give the president the power to send Americans to their deaths without permission of the representatives of the American people. Such an ability to commit to war without oversight, or review on what constitutes the "clear and present danger" would naturally and automatically lead to the president abusing the power, sending US soldiers to die for reasons of personal gain.

As we can see in the current situation, where the president has to dance around the rules in order to bring his Iraq agenda off, had there been no rules, we would have no recourse to address war crimes and other crimes committed by the Bush administration. Even if a weak congress cannot summon the courage to obey the law, at least there is a law for a future, braver congress...

[greco99-2009]

Here''s the problem -- if they prosecute Steven Green it means they can prosecute rapists and killers from Haliburton and Dyncorp.

Steven Green was discharged from the Army, and is *not* being prosecuted under UCMJ (military) law. He now falls into a phony ''legal loophole'' created by Bush and the Neocons.

Just consider the choice of law issue: which ''rules of evidence'' apply? Under phony Bush law, we get the result that *no* rules of evidence apply -- because allowing either U.S. or Iraqi law enables prosecution of past illegal acts and ongoing investigations.

It is impossible to investigate these companies in their lawless mideast havens. That is why they moved out of the U.S. (and to avoid taxes).

The alleged Haliburton rapists and killers (and, illegal arms sellers) fall into the same loophole as Steven Green, to preserve the loophole its impossible to prosecute him.

Steven Green will walk free. Just like Helliburton rapists, he falls into the loophole. They will be able to party with your daughter, and there''s nothing anyone can do.

Look at the contradictions in these cases and its clear why Bush and the Neo-Cons will be remembered as incompetant if not downright evil.

Would it be legal for someone to shoot Cheney in the loophole zone?

If they do find a way to prosecute Green...the law will apply to everyone who committed crimes in Iraq.

Wait until people see the movie Redacted about this case...and realize Steven Green will walk free.

[toolmangler-2009]

A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation, and one or more others. For the United States, Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says "Congress shall have power to ... declare War," however, that passage provides no specific format for what form legislation text must have to be considered a "Declaration of War" nor does the Constitution itself use this term. Many have postulated "Declaration(s) of War" must contain that phrase as or within the title. Many oppose that reasoning. The postulate has not been tested in court; however, this article will use the term "formal Declaration of War" to mean Congressional legislation that uses the phrase "Declaration of War" in the title.

Despite the constitutional requirement that Congress declare war, in practice, formal Declarations of War have occurred only upon prior request by the President.

After World War II, Congress voluntarily limited its use of the power to declare war to issuing authorizations of force. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (Pub.L. 93-148) limits the power of the President to wage war without the approval of the Congress. The United States of America has formally declared war against foreign nations five separate times.

[greco99-2009]

Here''''s the problem -- it they prosecute Steven Green it will mean they can prosecute the rapists and killers from Haliburton and Dyncorp.

Steven Green was discharged from the Army, and is *not* being prosecuted under UCMJ (military) justice.
He now falls into a phony ''''legal loophole'''' created by Bush and the Neocons.

Just consider the choice of law problem, which ''rules of evidence'' apply. Under phone Bush law we get the unique result that *no* rules of evidence applys -- because allowing either U.S. or Iraqi law has profound results for past illegal acts and ongoing investigations.

The alleged Haliburton rapists and killers (and, illegal arms sellers) fall into the same loophole as Steven Green, to preserve the loophole its impossible to prosecute him.

Steven Green will walk free. Just like Hailburton rapists, he falls into the loophole. They will be able to party with your daughter, and there''''s nothing anyone can do.

Look at the contradictions in these cases and its clear why Bush and the Neo-Cons will be remembered as incompetant if not downright evil.

Would it be legal for someone to shoot Cheney in the loophole zone?

If they do find a way to prosecute Green...the law will apply to everyone who committed crimes in Iraq...

Wait until people see the movie Redacted about the rape of a 14 year old...and realize Steven Green will walk free...